Policy-oriented recommendations resulting from guidance for the implementation of land degradation neutrality, under sub-objectives 1.1 and 1.2 of the Science-Policy Interface work programme for the biennium 2018–2019 Synthesis report by the Executive Secretary United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification Conference of the Parties
Committee on Science and Technology
Fourteenth session
New Delhi, India, 3–6 September 2019

1. GE.19-11899(E)

Conference of the Parties
Committee on Science and Technology
Fourteenth session
New Delhi, India, 3–6 September 2019
Item 2 (a) of the provisional agenda
Items resulting from the work programme of the Science-Policy Interface for the biennium 2018–2019
Refined guidance for implementation of land degradation neutrality, under objective 1
Policy-oriented recommendations resulting from guidance
for the implementation of land degradation neutrality, under
sub-objectives 1.1 and 1.2 of the Science-Policy Interface
work programme for the biennium 2018–2019
Synthesis report by the Executive Secretary
Summary
By its decision 21/COP.13, the Conference of the Parties requested the Science-Policy
Interface (SPI), as objective 1 of its work programme for 2018–2019, to provide refined
guidance for the implementation of land degradation neutrality (LDN) through sub-objective
1.1: advice on the design and implementation of LDN-related policies and initiatives that
bring about multiple environmental and development benefits and synergies with other Rio
conventions, in particular for climate change adaptation and mitigation actions; and sub-
objective 1.2: science-based evidence on the potential contribution of LDN to enhance the
well-being and livelihoods, as well as the environmental conditions, of people affected by
desertification/land degradation and drought (DLDD).
The SPI focused its work on these two sub-objectives by identifying the most pressing
needs for scientific information to inform future policy and guide the design and
implementation of LDN.
For sub-objective 1.1, the SPI considered the central role of soil organic carbon (SOC)
in implementing LDN and delivering multiple environmental and development benefits, and
the need to address challenges in measuring and monitoring SOC. Therefore, the SPI
produced a technical report which provides guidance to help countries (a) identify suitable
context-specific sustainable land management technologies and approaches to maintain or
enhance SOC stocks; and (b) estimate and monitor SOC for land-use planning and for
monitoring LDN.
For sub-objective 1.2, based on a global survey of the experiences of those
stakeholders and country Parties who: are involved with LDN, have already adopted LDN
targets, and are in the early stages of undertaking LDN implementation-related activities, the
United Nations ICCD/COP(14)/CST/2
Convention to Combat
Desertification
Distr.: General
12 July 2019
Original: English

2. ICCD/COP(14)/CST/2
2
SPI identified the need for an enabling environment for LDN as the greatest challenge to
realizing the potential contribution of LDN to enhancing the well-being and livelihoods of
people affected by DLDD, as well as the environmental conditions of their surroundings.
Therefore, the SPI produced a technical report to support countries in creating an enabling
environment for LDN planning and implementation, which focuses on four dimensions:
(a) appropriate and inclusive policies and regulations, (b) engaged institutions, (c) access to
finance, and (d) an effective science–policy interface.
To accomplish these objectives, the SPI conducted two thematic assessments in
collaboration with commissioned expert scientists working under the supervision of the SPI.
Based on these assessments, the SPI prepared two technical reports: (a) Realising the Carbon
Benefits of Sustainable Land Management Practices: Guidelines for Estimation of Soil
Organic Carbon in the Context of Land Degradation Neutrality Planning and Monitoring;
and (b) Creating an Enabling Environment for Land Degradation Neutrality and its Potential
Contribution to Enhancing Well-being, Livelihoods and the Environment.
This document presents the activities undertaken by the SPI on these two related sub-
objectives as well as a summary of the key findings emerging from each report, including
proposals for consideration by the Committee on Science and Technology at its fourteenth
session.

3. ICCD/COP(14)/CST/2
3
Contents
Paragraphs Page
List of abbreviations................................................................................................ 4
I. Background ............................................................................................................. 1–6 5
II. Summary of the main scientific findings................................................................. 7–49 6
A. Sub-objective 1.1: Towards realizing the carbon benefits of sustainable
land management practices .......................................................................... 7–33 6
B. Sub-objective 1.2: Towards an effective enabling environment and
multiple benefits in the context of land degradation neutrality.................... 34–49 11
III. Conclusions and recommendations......................................................................... 50–53 17
Annex
Decision trees........................................................................................................................... 22

4. ICCD/COP(14)/CST/2
4
List of abbreviations
CBD Convention on Biological Diversity
COP Conference of the Parties
CST Committee on Science and Technology
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
DLDD desertification/land degradation and drought
LCC land cover change
LDN land degradation neutrality
LDN TSP Land Degradation Neutrality Target Setting Programme
NAP national action programme
NPP net primary productivity
PES payments for ecosystem services
SDG Sustainable Development Goal
SLM sustainable land management
SOC soil organic carbon
SOM soil organic matter
SPI Science-Policy Interface
UNCCD United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification
UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
VGGT Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land,
Fisheries and Forests
WOCAT World Overview of Conservation Approaches and Technologies

5. ICCD/COP(14)/CST/2
5
I. Background
1. By its decision 21/COP.13, the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the United Nations
Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) adopted the Science-Policy Interface (SPI)
work programme for the biennium 2018–2019 (annex to decision 21/COP.13). Under
objective 1 of its work programme for 2018–2019, the SPI is to provide refined guidance for
the implementation of land degradation neutrality (LDN) through sub-objective 1.1: advice
on the design and implementation of LDN-related policies and initiatives that bring about
multiple environmental and development benefits and synergies with other Rio conventions,
in particular for climate change adaptation and mitigation actions; and sub-objective 1.2:
science-based evidence on the potential contribution of LDN to enhancing the well-being and
livelihoods as well as the environmental conditions of people affected by desertification/land
degradation and drought.
2. In line with its mandate, as defined in decision 23/COP.11 and decision 19/COP.12,
the SPI, under the leadership of the Bureau of the Committee on Science and Technology
(CST), was requested to provide the CST with clear and well-defined thematic guidance on
scientific knowledge requirements and identify the most optimal way forward (e.g.
commissioning an individual or group of experts or institutions) to address these. For both
parts of objective 1 it was decided to commission subject matter experts to prepare three
targeted background reports (one for sub-objective 1.1 and two for subjective 1.2), which
would form a key input to technical reports written in collaboration with SPI members and
observers serving in working groups.
3. Under the leadership of the Bureau of the CST, the UNCCD secretariat and the SPI
drafted concept notes, terms of reference and proposal evaluation criteria for the selection of
these subject matter experts. Following a public competitive tender, four experts were
commissioned for the task of elaborating these domain-specific background reports under the
guidance of the SPI.
4. The background papers served as a foundation for the technical reports that were
prepared by the SPI working groups in collaboration with the selected experts.
5. In keeping with decision 19/COP.12, as well as internal SPI procedures, a draft of
each technical report was scientifically reviewed by all SPI members. The technical reports
also underwent an international, independent review, which included domain-knowledge
experts from each region, selected by the co-chairs of the SPI. The co-lead authors of each
technical report ensured that all peer review comments received appropriate consideration.
A summary of each technical report was provided by the Chair of the CST and reviewed by
the Bureau of the COP.
6. The final drafts of the technical reports (a) Realising the Carbon Benefits of
Sustainable Land Management Practices: Guidelines for the Estimation of Soil organic
Carbon in the Context of Land Degradation Neutrality Planning and Monitoring and
(b) Creating an Enabling Environment for Land Degradation Neutrality and its Potential
Contribution to Enhancing Well-being, Livelihoods and the Environment, and an associated
science-policy brief, were submitted for publication and will be available to the public in
August 2019. The main scientific findings emerging from the technical reports are
summarized in this document, including the conclusions reached and a set of actionable
proposals for consideration by the CST at its fourteenth session (CST 14).

6. ICCD/COP(14)/CST/2
6
II. Summary of the main scientific findings
A. Sub-objective 1.1: Towards realizing the carbon benefits of sustainable
land management practices
1. Importance of soil organic carbon
7. Soil organic carbon (SOC) is the measurable carbon component and major constituent
of soil organic matter (SOM), which is comprised of the remains of plant and animal
materials in the soil at various stages of decomposition.
8. SOM plays a critical role in the chemical, physical, and biological properties and
functions of soil. It supports soil productivity, soil hydrology, soil structure and soil
biodiversity. Furthermore, SOM can serve as a carbon sink, which helps offset greenhouse
gas emissions, with SOC stocks being an important component of the global carbon cycle.1
9. While a key ecosystem health indicator, SOC presents challenges associated with (a)
predicting potential SOC changes with sustainable land management (SLM) interventions;
and (b) tracking SOC change on spatio-temporal scales. Software tools and biophysical
models for SOC can help fill the gaps in measured datasets.
10. Expert scientists were commissioned to evaluate methodological approaches to
classify SLM approaches and technologies according to their potential to maintain and
enhance SOC stock. Additionally, an analytical review was conducted of various tools
associated with evaluating SOC stock changes from different SLM interventions.
11. The SPI technical report Realising the Carbon Benefits of Sustainable Land
Management Practices: Guidelines for Estimation of Soil Organic Carbon in the Context of
Land Degradation Neutrality Planning and Monitoring provides guidance on estimating,
assessing and managing SOC for multiple benefits in order to support transformation through
the pursuit of LDN.
12. The technical report is divided into two parts that provide guidance to assist countries
in:
(a) Identifying suitable SLM practices and approaches for maintaining or
enhancing SOC stocks; and
(b) Estimating SOC for land-use planning and monitoring the achievement of
LDN.
13. Practical guidance is provided through a series of decision trees as well as an
evaluation of available tools and models for SOC estimation (see annex).
2. Establishing relationships between soil organic carbon, sustainable land management
and land degradation neutrality
14. Drivers of land degradation can trigger processes that result in SOC losses.
Anthropogenic drivers include, but are not limited to, cultivation and land-use change,
deforestation and forest degradation, forest fires, overgrazing, nutrient mining, animal
traction, and soil compaction through mechanization. In many cases, SOC is lost faster than
it can be added or regained. SLM, when deployed appropriately for given locations and
situations, can be used to avoid these detrimental actions as well as counter or compensate
for their effect. Change in SOC stocks is far more challenging to manage and monitor on a
large scale than the other two indicators of LDN – land cover change and land productivity
dynamics – because it is not readily quantified by remote sensing.
1
While maintaining or increasing soil organic carbon (SOC) is important in degraded lands, there are
conditions where degradation can lead to an increase in SOC, and there are soils rich in SOC where
the positive impact of an increase in SOC may be negligible.

7. ICCD/COP(14)/CST/2
7
15. To establish the relationship between SOC and SLM, the net rate of SOC storage for
site-specific SLM needs to be determined. This can be done through the monitoring of effects
of SLM on SOC stocks in long-term benchmark sites.
16. Accurate evaluation of SOC change resulting from SLM interventions is often limited
by the availability of data and the performance of tools/models for SOC assessment. The SPI
technical report therefore provides a framework for monitoring SOC stocks following SLM
interventions to optimize the use of limited resources for SOC stock assessment.
17. Choosing suitable SLM approaches for specific land areas is supported by information
from SOC measurements and tools/models for SOC assessment (see figure 1). Furthermore,
SOC data can be used to develop, test and refine SOC assessment methods for application in
SOC monitoring (see figure 1). SLM approaches and technologies that maintain or increase
SOC help avoid, reduce or reverse land degradation and achieve LDN, contributing to
UNCCD national action programmes (NAPs).

8. ICCD/COP(14)/CST/2
8
Figure 1
Framework for the management of soil organic carbon for land degradation neutrality
Note: land degradation neutrality (LDN), soil organic carbon (SOC), sustainable land management (SLM), World
Overview of Conservation Approaches and Technologies (WOCAT).
18. The benefits of SOC extend beyond the mission of the UNCCD, and LDN provides a
framework for achieving multiple benefits on the ground. SOC is central to the role of land
in climate change mitigation, through the prevention of its loss (e.g. erosion control) and
increase in the SOC pool (e.g. sequestration). SOC is also a key factor for climate change
adaptation through its role in increasing ecosystem and community resilience, which is
derived from improved soil fertility, water-holding capacity and biodiversity. Sustaining land
productivity reduces the pressure for land conversion, protecting the carbon stock, the
services of the surrounding environment and the natural habitat.
19. These co-benefits contribute to the missions of the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Convention on Biological Diversity
(CBD). LDN makes this possible not only because one of its indicators is SOC. Through its
strong emphasis on integrated land-use planning, LDN creates an opportunity to pursue LDN

9. ICCD/COP(14)/CST/2
9
targets, the CBD Post-2020 Biodiversity Framework and the objectives of the land
component of nationally determined contributions and UNFCCC national adaptation
programmes, simultaneously. Moreover, mainstreaming LDN planning into national
development strategies and land-use planning at national and subnational levels can also help
to ensure the achievement of multiple benefits.
3. Choosing sustainable land management practices to maintain or enhance soil organic
carbon
20. The primary means to achieve the multiple benefits of LDN at landscape and national
levels is through the targeted application of SLM practices (policies, strategies, approaches
and technologies) which can help maintain or increase SOC. The SPI technical report for
sub-objective 1.1 provides a series of decision trees designed to address important barriers to
achieving the multiple benefits of SOC (see annex):
(a) Decision tree 1: Provides guidance on where investment in SOC assessment
and monitoring is recommended in order to track the impact of SLM implementation as well
as support the monitoring of LDN achievements in terms of SOC change in 2030;
(b) Decision tree 2: Guides the use of SOC monitoring to assess and verify SLM
impact on SOC – using direct measurements and/or tools/models for SOC assessment – and
contribute these efforts to national-scale LDN assessment;
(c) Decision trees 3 (a) and 3 (b): Supports the use of tools/models for SOC
assessment and measured data to comparatively assess the potential impacts of SLM practices
on SOC based on required levels of certainty in the results (low to moderate to high);
(d) Decision tree 4: Assists in identifying essential areas of SOC monitoring in the
context of other indicators tracking land degradation, degradation status and land types; and
(e) Decision tree 5: Provides guidance on the selection of sampling approaches to
measure SOC and evaluate SOC change with SLM.
21. These decision trees can be adapted for the national-scale of LDN assessment by first
assembling all relevant datasets from SOC monitoring of SLM interventions and any other
available data sources.
22. Ensuring social equality, especially gender equality, is critical to achieving LDN.
Ensuring more equal access to natural resources to enable women to become active users and
managers of natural resources is vital. Efforts to mainstream gender as proposed in the
UNCCD Gender Action Plan2
as well as of other United Nations entities and international
organizations convey the importance of gender equality and gender-inclusive action. Men
and women relate to land differently, and their unique perspectives are driven by varying
roles, responsibilities, access to resources and control. Understanding these roles, along with
power relations in land management, is a primary requirement to achieving effective
outcomes when combating land degradation and implementing SLM/LDN initiatives.
Ensuring the evaluation of the gender dimension of land is also essential.3
23. Improvements in SOC have strong beneficial impacts on soil properties and processes.
Contributions to achieving LDN and enhancing SOC should be considered as a criterion for
the identification of suitable SLM technologies. Therefore, information on specific SLM
practices, which is necessary for the prioritization of investment in SOC, is provided in the
SPI report.4
24. Identifying the most effective intervention for a given location depends on the type of
problem to be addressed, the land type and land use, the SLM approaches and the
technologies locally available, as well as local expertise to support adoption and
dissemination. The SPI report therefore contains a list of examples of SLM approaches,
technologies, and collective actions that have relevance to LDN.
2
<https://www.unccd.int/publications/gender-action-plan>.
3
<https://mirror.gltn.net/jdownloads/GLTN%20Documents/gec_brief_for_web.pdf>.
4
Realising the Carbon Benefits of Sustainable Land Management Practices: Guidelines for Estimation
of Soil Organic Carbon in the Context of Land Degradation Neutrality Planning and Monitoring.

10. ICCD/COP(14)/CST/2
10
25. Investment in monitoring of LDN progress will depend on the LDN strategy deployed.
Selecting SLM interventions to benefit SOC can, in some cases, be determined without
investment in comparative assessment, but often investment in SOC monitoring will be
required as defined in the SPI report.
26. The allocation of resources among land restoration interventions that provide the
highest return on investment can be informed by the use of economic models that project the
long-term cost, benefits and risks of SLM intervention options relative to the cost of inaction.
The SPI report suggests a pragmatic approach to investing in comparative assessment for
SOC, based on the lowest level of certainty required to yield results useful for SLM decision-
making.
27. Comparative SOC assessment is typically performed using software tools and models
for SOC assessment and default datasets, resulting in low levels of certainty. While this can
meet some needs, SOC assessment for carbon trading might require identifying and filling
data gaps using SOC stock measurements in order to attain the higher levels of certainty
required to select SLM options that optimize economic returns. Guidance for this is provided
in the SPI report in two decision trees: (a) one to consult when low or moderate certainty is
required and (b) one to consult when high certainty is required (see annex, figures 3 (a) and
3 (b)).
4. Choosing tools for estimating and monitoring soil organic carbon stocks
28. The primary instrument for achieving LDN is through SLM approaches which
combine technologies, policies and activities aimed at integrating socioeconomic principles
with environmental concerns. To optimize the use of limited resources to support the
management of SOC, the SPI report 5
suggests that focusing on investment in SOC
assessment and accurate SOC estimation is most important.
29. Accurate estimation and evaluation of SOC change resulting from SLM interventions
is often limited by the availability of standardized/harmonized data and the performance of
tools/models for SOC assessment; thus, targeted investment in SOC monitoring is vital to
scale up analyses to support LDN.
30. National soil inventories are important SOC information providers but may require
harmonization of data and methods to document LDN progress. The SPI report provides a
decision tree to define where tracking and monitoring of SOC is necessary for verifying LDN
achievement (see annex, figure 1).
31. Additionally, the SPI report provides two comprehensive lists of tools for SOC
assessment and monitoring that can be used by practitioners to select which tool or suite of
tools best fits their needs.
32. Ideally, the selection of SLM interventions for SOC management should be supported
by the accumulation of datasets and resources (tools/models) to scale up SOC evaluations.
Establishing a national SOC monitoring network that includes carefully designed soil
sampling schemes for SOC measurement can also support the development of national
greenhouse gas inventories.
33. The guidance and decision tools provided by the SPI report have been developed in
such a way as to help bridge the needs of policymakers and land managers to support the
planning and implementation of LDN. The guidance helps in the development of LDN
programmes that seek to maintain or enhance SOC through SLM by supporting the selection
of (a) appropriate SLM practices, and (b) the most appropriate approach to SOC estimation
and monitoring. The SPI report contains a concluding section that distils guidance for land
managers on the selection of SLM practices to suit the local socioeconomic, gender and bio-
physical context, and on estimating and monitoring SOC.
5
Ibid., 4.

11. ICCD/COP(14)/CST/2
11
B. Sub-objective 1.2: Towards an effective enabling environment and
multiple benefits in the context of land degradation neutrality
34. Attaining and maintaining LDN can require establishing an enabling environment for
designing and implementing measures that can achieve multiple benefits through
safeguarding and enhancing well-being and livelihoods of people affected by land
degradation while improving a range of environmental conditions. The SPI sub-objective 1.2
technical report Creating an Enabling Environment for Land Degradation Neutrality and its
Potential Contribution to Enhancing Well-being, Livelihoods and the Environment provides
science-based evidence on the configuration of an enabling environment for LDN and on the
opportunities for multiple benefits.
35. The SPI adopted three approaches to delineate the evidence base for this report. First,
a literature review (333 references) summarizes contemporary trends in land governance and
land markets and assesses the implications for LDN. Second, a global survey (353
respondents, 54 per cent response rate) among practitioners and experts (including 74
national focal points) involved in the LDN process gauges their perceptions on elements of
an enabling environment for LDN, as well as their expectations for attaining multiple benefits
and general progress on LDN. Third, a review of LDN Target Setting Programme (LDN TSP)
country reports (30, drawn from all regions) contextualizes the results of the survey. Insights
from these sources are triangulated to formulate key messages and policy-oriented
recommendations.
36. The findings highlight the multidimensional nature of the LDN enabling environment,
which requires enhanced vertical and horizontal integration of institutions and governance
mechanisms. Furthermore, land governance and secure land tenure need to be adapted to
local conditions. Evidence outlined in the SPI report highlights the dynamics of land
governance and the increasing impacts of global value chains on local land management,
providing both challenges and opportunities for LDN implementation.
37. Stakeholders have high expectations for multiple benefits relating to well-being and
livelihoods to be attained through the implementation of LDN. Moreover, evidence gathered
indicates that the level of multiple benefits that could be realized, strongly depends on
contextual conditions. Therefore, assessments of the prevailing political, social, economic
and cultural dimensions that characterize a target area or country are needed, and LDN targets
and interventions should be aligned with other national targets.
38. Achieving LDN requires planning and institutional support that goes beyond the
implementation of individual SLM practices. For diverse stakeholders to converge towards
LDN, the SPI report suggests that two essential factors must align:
(a) An enabling environment: an adequate context for progress towards LDN has
to be created to help design, develop and successfully implement LDN measures. The
different contextual factors are captured in the SPI report under the umbrella of creating an
enabling environment for LDN and include the collaboration of science and policy, the
availability of financial means, stable institutional arrangements, and responsible and
purposeful land governance; and
(b) Multiple benefits: As LDN is one among a larger range of land-related targets
that are part of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and national sustainable
development agendas, finding measures aimed at LDN that also further other goals can
catalyse LDN progress. Such measures with multiple benefits can improve human well-being
and livelihoods while enhancing the state of the environment.
39. The relationships between both enabling environment and multiple benefits and LDN
are depicted in figure 2:

12. ICCD/COP(14)/CST/2
12
Figure 2
Conceptual framework of the linkages between an enabling environment for land
degradation neutrality and the achievement of multiple benefits
Note: land degradation neutrality (LDN).
40. Figure 2 illustrates the links between an enabling environment and multiple benefits
in the context of LDN. Measures that promote multiple benefits strengthen the enabling
environment for LDN, and concurrently, the enabling environment can foster multiple
benefits. The four dimensions of the enabling environment mentioned in this figure take a
central role in the SPI report, with land governance given specific attention.
41. The SPI report identifies and provides an evidence-based analysis of the four
dimensions of an enabling environment: (a) institutional dimension, (b) financial dimension,
(c) policy and regulatory dimensions, and (d) science-policy dimension, as well as in cases
where there are (e) multiple benefits.
1. Institutional dimension of an enabling environment
42. A common national long-term vision and commitment to LDN is perceived as critical
for the implementation of LDN, and good progress is evident in target-setting and
institutional coordination. However, gaps remain in the mainstreaming of LDN targets,
vertical coordination, and the overall political importance given to LDN amongst competing
priorities. The SPI is basing this analysis on:
(a) A common national long-term vision and commitment to LDN is ranked in the
survey as the most important measure to support LDN implementation;
(b) Overall good progress is evident in the SPI analysis of the survey and LDN
TSP country reports, particularly in establishing a lead agency (primarily environmental or
agriculture ministries), horizontal coordination mechanisms and multi-stakeholder
consultation; and
(c) Findings from the LDN stakeholder survey and the review of LDN TSP
country reports identify gaps in:
(i) The mainstreaming of targets into national plans;
(ii) The establishment of vertical coordination mechanisms;

13. ICCD/COP(14)/CST/2
13
(iii) Institutional capacities in enforcement;
(iv) Securing of land tenure and conflict resolution; and
(v) The overall importance given to LDN among competing political priorities.
(a) Land tenure and responsible land governance
43. The SPI report Creating an Enabling Environment for Land Degradation Neutrality
and its Potential Contribution to Enhancing Well-being, Livelihoods and the Environment
underscores that the implementation of LDN measures relies heavily on responsible land
governance. LDN initiatives should account for the ways land governance is organized in a
specific context. This implies being aware of the various interests in land, the multiple and
often fragmented agencies of relevance, the legislative framework, the level of
decentralization, the importance of customary land governance institutions, and the various
land management regimes (including different forms of sedentary agriculture, pastoralism
and forest dwelling). The SPI is basing this analysis on the following findings:
(a) Land tenure security forms the backbone of responsible land governance.
Without land tenure security, land users are less likely to invest in SLM. Moreover, most
land-based interventions require secure land tenure to function. The form of land tenure
(freehold, nationalized, rental, communal/customary) is not directly related to land tenure
security (the certainty that relationships and ensuing agreements on the rights to use, control
and transfer land are upheld and recognized by others). Customary systems can be highly
secure even when no formal land titles exist, and freehold systems can be perceived as highly
insecure in certain contexts; and
(b) Efforts to increase land tenure security have long been limited to the granting
of individual land titles. Funding agencies have transitioned towards more general
strengthening of land governance. Interventions that address the sources of tenure insecurity
are more effective than a single focus on titling. Capacity-building of land administrations
(customary or statutory), legal and regulatory reform, information campaigns and improved
land-use planning are ways to address tenure insecurity.
(b) Gender dimensions of land governance
44. Land degradation negatively affects women disproportionally, as they tend to be more
reliant on natural resources and land. However, women are often not granted an equal role in
official land governance decision-making or land-use planning.6
At the same time, the
significant role of environmental steward bestowed upon women makes them key partners in
LDN actions that aim to combat degradation. The SPI is basing this analysis on the following:
(a) Land tenure can be heavily gendered: At the intra-household level, land titles
are often vested in men, and skewed inheritance laws can further exacerbate this situation.
While customary (not formally titled) systems can experience similar gender issues, poorly
designed land formalization campaigns risk exacerbating such inequalities, especially when
land titles cannot be shared with spouses. These tenure insecurities affect women’s
participation in initiatives to address land degradation. The ongoing trend of large-scale land
acquisitions and medium-scale farms pose an additional threat to gender equality as it can
involve a shift from many and relatively gender-equal rural jobs to few and male-dominated
farmhand jobs; and
(b) Gender-responsive land governance interventions can significantly alleviate
unequal land access and enable women to be effective stewards of the environment. Gender
therefore takes a central role in UNCCD frameworks, the Voluntary Guidelines on the
Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests (VGGT)7
and land-related
SDGs. Continued attention for the inclusion of gender dimensions in LDN TSPs, land-use
planning, and the design of interventions is warranted.
6
<http://www.unwomen.org/en/digital-library/publications/2018/2/towards-a-gender-responsive-
implementation-of-the-un-convention-to-combat-desertification>.
7
<http://www.fao.org/3/a-i2801e.pdf>.

14. ICCD/COP(14)/CST/2
14
2. Financial dimension of an enabling environment
45. The survey conducted by the SPI indicated that although a national budget for LDN
is ranked as an important measure for implementation, few countries have assessed financial
needs or secured finance to that end. The SPI is basing this analysis on:
(a) A national budget for LDN is ranked in the survey as one of the most important
measures to support implementation, while the lack of finance was ranked as an important
challenge to LDN moving forward;
(b) The Global Environmental Facility is identified as another important source of
finance, while the Global Mechanism of the UNCCD was considered a key enabler of finance;
(c) There is limited information in the LDN TSP country reports on financial
needs and costings, which suggests that this is an important gap in progress; and
(d) Overall, a minority of survey respondents (16 per cent) indicated that they have
secured finance for LDN to date.
3. Policy and regulatory dimensions of an enabling environment
46. The SPI report concludes that secure land tenure and access to land are important
enablers for LDN implementation, however national progress enabling policies and
regulations and the capacity to implement them remains low. Limited national progress is
evident in establishing effective integrated land-use planning systems and, in particular,
embedding neutrality mechanisms. The SPI is basing this analysis on the following:
(a) Secured land tenure and access to land is ranked in the survey as an important
measure for LDN implementation, while national capacity for securing land tenure
arrangements is rated as low;
(b) The LDN TSP country reports provide limited evidence to support the
importance of land tenure security, as very few reports consider land tenure. In the few cases
where it is addressed, it is identified as a weakness or barrier to SLM. This suggests that land
tenure and governance arrangements represent an important capacity gap for the national
implementation of LDN;
(c) Most survey respondents rate their integrated land-use planning systems as
modest or limited, while there is limited reported adoption of neutrality mechanisms in land-
use planning; and
(d) Very few LDN TSP country reports evaluate the effectiveness of integrated
land-use planning systems or refer to a neutrality mechanism. Integrated land-use planning,
and neutrality mechanisms appear to be important capacity gaps.
Role of integrated land-use planning and land governance in support of land degradation
neutrality
47. The SPI report also concludes that integrated land-use planning reconciles LDN and
other targets in a political process that governs adopts desirable future land use. The
efficiency of LDN implementation in land-use planning processes can be increased by
managing trade-offs and synergies with other land-based targets. The SPI is basing this
analysis on the following findings:
(a) Out of the range of available integrated land-use planning instruments (see
figure 3) governments opt mostly for agricultural advisory services and financial incentives,
either embedded within broad agricultural policies or targeted in the form of payments for
ecosystem services (PES). Land zoning or specific land management regulations are used to
a lesser extent but may be important to attain the neutrality target;

15. ICCD/COP(14)/CST/2
15
Figure 3
Integrated land-use planning as a balancing exercise between three broad priorities
(b) The agricultural sector has moved into a period of dynamism in which new
land governance and management types, such as large-scale land acquisitions, medium-scale
farms and contract farming, are increasing. Agricultural cooperatives have the potential to be
partners for LDN. Different forms of vertical integration in land governance should be
accounted for in operationalizing LDN and offer scope for implementation through
partnerships with various players in globalized value chains. These new land governance
arrangements also involve threats to achieve LDN targets;
(c) Increased integration of land users in global value chains has amplified the role
of private land governance. Tools and interventions that companies can use to improve the
sustainability and well-being of farmers in their supply chain include: agricultural training,
direct investments at origin, internal codes of conduct, eco-certification, commodity
roundtables and retailer-imposed standards. Hybrid governance arrangements can encourage
other companies to take up these tools and facilitate the monitoring of the effectiveness of
these tools;
(d) Large-scale agricultural subsidies can be disruptive and create perverse
incentives to overproduce or move towards monocultures. Recent dynamics in the
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development countries show a decline in these
types of subsidies;

16. ICCD/COP(14)/CST/2
16
(e) PES are interventions to reward land users for taking measures to maintain a
supply of ecosystem services, which are often beneficial to the general public beyond the
single land user. These schemes can contribute to LDN and well-being, but they are likely
only appropriate when on-farm land degradation has off-farm impacts (e.g. sediment load
issues). Additionality could be undermined by leakage (when a degrading land-use practice
that is locally discouraged using PES relocates to areas where the PES scheme is not
operational, thereby displacing degradation rather than creating net reduction in degradation)
and biased targeting (when elites capture the payments and/or when enrolees were already
practicing the desired land management). Payments can also crowd out intrinsic motivation
for responsible land stewardship (when voluntary action diminishes if monetary
compensation is offered); and
(f) Agricultural advisory/extension services can provide land users with the
necessary information to implement LDN. This can be effective insofar as a lack of
information is the only limiting factor to the adoption of SLM. Prolonged and participatory
engagement may be necessary to achieve results, while in other contexts, on-demand advice
may be more appropriate.
4. Science-policy dimension of the enabling environment
48. The SPI report found that countries are using the three global indicators for LDN;
however, gaps remain in national capacities to set baselines and track progress, particularly
for land productivity dynamics and SOC. Despite these gaps, in most cases national data
systems are adequate for making data available for land-use planning decisions. The SPI is
basing this analysis on the following:
(a) Survey respondents rate the lack of awareness and understanding of LDN and
its key concepts as a key challenge for LDN moving forward. Gaps in technical capacities
for implementing LDN are apparent in both the survey and LDN TSP country reports;
(b) Most respondents to the survey confirm that they would use the three global
indicators; however, national capacities to set baselines and track progress are challenging;
(c) The LDN TSP country reports highlight considerable progress in setting
national baselines for the global indicators. Stronger capabilities are evident in land cover
mapping and land-use change assessment, and national datasets are often utilized. However,
there are limited capabilities in monitoring land productivity dynamics and SOC, which
means that reliance upon global datasets is required;
(d) The survey results highlight that in most cases, national data systems are
considered adequate for making data available in land-use planning decisions, and data is
perceived as a lower priority challenge for LDN implementation moving forward; and
(e) Both the survey results and the LDN TSP country reports highlight stronger
capabilities and better progress on land degradation and potential assessments, but limited
progress and capacities on resilience and socioeconomic assessments.
5. Multiple benefits
49. The SPI report concludes that stakeholders expect a range of multiple benefits to
human well-being and livelihoods to materialize as a result of SLM and LDN. Important
measures mentioned for leveraging multiple benefits include the full and effective
participation of local communities and stakeholders, mainstreaming of LDN in existing plans
and programmes, and evaluation of economic, social and environmental trade-offs during
programme design. Furthermore, the report concludes that capacity gaps remain in assessing
multiple benefits and trade-offs and managing these during project design. The SPI is basing
this analysis on the following:
(a) Over 90 per cent of survey respondents agree or strongly agree that they expect
positive effects on human well-being and livelihoods as a result of SLM and LDN.
Respondents also expect to see a broad range of multiple benefits from implementing LDN,
in particular increased food security, enhanced local livelihoods, increased biodiversity,
increased yields/productivity, and increased resilience to drought. The respondents’ strong

17. ICCD/COP(14)/CST/2
17
expectations for multiple benefits to be accrued from LDN implementation contrast with
similarly strong indications that LDN is competing with other political priorities;
(b) The LDN TSP country reports highlight that countries are identifying these
linkages and benefits to varying degrees, with some adopting leverage plans. The main
leverage opportunities included enhanced food security, poverty reduction, conservation,
agricultural productivity, climate resilience, water security, hunger eradication, household
income, and economic development. The LDN TSP country reports thus reveal consider
scope for advancing SDG implementation in tandem with LDN implementation;
(c) The survey results and the LDN TSP country reports highlight some important
measures for leveraging multiple benefits such as the full and effective participation of local
communities and stakeholders, the mainstreaming of LDN into existing plans and
programmes, a greater engagement of central planning and finance ministries, the evaluation
of economic, social and environmental trade-offs during programme design, and the
prioritization of livelihood outcomes;
(d) Strong agreement from survey respondents that the consideration of multiple
benefits makes planning for LDN easier. Yet, less than half agree that it is clear how to
manage trade-offs, and considerable gaps in the availability of data for monitoring multiple
benefits are apparent. This highlights the potential gaps in national capabilities for assessing
multiple benefits and trade-offs and designing projects and programmes that maximize
multiple benefits and manage tensions or unintended consequences; and
(e) Close to 50 per cent of survey respondents point to considerable gaps in the
availability of quality data across a range of different benefits, including for advancing
gender-responsive LDN. Areas with absent or particularly poor data quality included
resilience (56 per cent), soil organic carbon (45 per cent) and gender equality (56 per cent).
III. Conclusions and recommendations
Conclusions and recommendations for SPI sub-objective 1.1
50. The SPI technical report for sub-objective 1.1 provides a scientific foundation
for managing SOC through SLM interventions designed to achieve LDN and deliver
multiple environmental and development benefits. It also provides guidance to address
the challenges in measuring and monitoring SOC. This report can help countries (a)
identify suitable context-specific SLM technologies and approaches to maintain or
enhance SOC stocks; and (b) estimate and monitor SOC for land-use planning and
monitoring LDN. There are four main conclusions:
(a) Conclusion 1: SOC is a fundamental ecosystem health indicator. With its
multifunctional roles, its sensitivity to land management, and its direct relevance to the
missions of all three Rio conventions, SOC constitutes a key criterion for the
identification of suitable SLM technologies to contribute to the achievement of LDN;
(b) Conclusion 2: The challenges of (i) predicting potential SOC changes with
SLM interventions; and (ii) tracking SOC changes on temporal scales can be addressed
with the use of tools/models developed to estimate SOC dynamics. The management of
SOC for LDN requires a framework designed to support investment decisions (national
to project level), focus LDN interventions in zones at risk and support the selection of
appropriate SLM technologies and approaches. Such a framework would provide a
structured approach, enabling the integration of measured data and tools/models for
SOC assessment, to support the planning of locally-suited SLM and
rehabilitation/restoration interventions in the context of integrated land-use
management to achieve LDN;
(c) Conclusion 3: A framework for the management of SOC to support the
achievement of LDN will be most effective if it promotes gender equality, enables
women to invest in natural resources, builds capacities of local institutions and involves
stakeholders in identifying suitable SLM practices; and

18. ICCD/COP(14)/CST/2
18
(d) Conclusion 4: The level of certainty required in SOC assessment varies
depending on the objective. Moreover, national capacity to measure and monitor SOC
is highly variable. Measurement and monitoring programmes should assess SOC at the
level of certainty suited to the application. Effort should be made to enhance capacity
for SOC measurement and modelling to address identified data gaps and limitations in
tools/models through collaboration with relevant regional institutions.
51. The SPI suggests that the CST consider the following recommendations:
(a) Recommendation 1. The CST should encourage country Parties to:
(i) Employ SLM technologies and approaches that are designed to maintain
or increase SOC with the aim of achieving multiple benefits;
(ii) Use SOC as in indicator to monitor SLM-based LDN interventions to
support the achievement of LDN;
(iii) Align SOC monitoring to national LDN monitoring; and
(iv) Share the guidance for land managers at national and subnational level;
(b) Recommendation 2. Invite technical partners specializing in SLM, in
collaboration with relevant scientific mechanisms (e.g. the Intergovernmental
Technical Panel on Soils of the Global Soil Partnership), to design a framework for the
management of SOC for LDN to support investment decisions, focus interventions on
zones at risk and support the selection of locally appropriate SLM technologies and
approaches. This framework would guide country Parties in their efforts to:
(i) Evaluate land potential and current land conditions as the basis for
identifying priority areas for avoiding, reducing and reversing land degradation;
(ii) Identify SLM interventions adapted to local conditions;
(iii) Focus SLM interventions on sites where SOC is at risk of loss, or where
there is high potential for SOC to be increased; and
(iv) Invest in SOC monitoring where SOC tracking is recommended for the
achievement of LDN, and to
(v) Strengthen knowledge on the relationship between SLM and SOC to
identify SLM practices that build SOC stocks and quantifying their co-benefits.
(c) Recommendation 3. Urge country Parties and other stakeholders to:
(i) Integrate gender-responsive actions to promote gender equality and
female empowerment through the gender-inclusive design of preliminary LDN
assessments recommended by the Scientific Conceptual Framework for Land
Degradation Neutrality;
(ii) Develop gender-responsive LDN interventions based on women’s
participation in decision-making for enabling inclusive land governance;
(iii) Include gender dimensions in land-use planning and in the design of
interventions towards achieving LDN; and
(iv) Employ the gender evaluation criteria developed by the Global Land Tool
Network facilitated by the UN-Habitat;
(d) Recommendation 4. Encourage country Parties, in collaboration with
relevant technical and financial partners, to strengthen national-level coordination and
capacity for SOC measurement and monitoring by:
(i) Strengthening capacities of technical institutions and human resources by
providing guidance on estimating and monitoring SOC for land-use planning,
LDN monitoring and other applications;
(ii) Developing/reinforcing skills for designing soil sampling strategies and
implementing measurement and monitoring programmes;

19. ICCD/COP(14)/CST/2
19
(iii) Developing/enhancing processes for quality assurance, sample storage
and data retention to support the development of tools/models for SOC
estimation; and
(iv) Invite interested relevant technical partners to develop/refine SOC
estimation tools/models for application in LDN assessment on sites where
detailed measurements of SOC are not required.
Conclusions and recommendations for SPI sub-objective 1.2
52. The SPI technical report for sub-objective 1.2 provides a scientific basis for
understanding the key dimensions of an enabling environment for LDN, which include
appropriate and inclusive policies and regulations, engaged institutions, access to
finance, and an effective science-policy interface. It provides guidance which can
support countries in their efforts to create an enabling environment for LDN planning
and implementation. There are five main conclusions:
(a) Conclusion 1: Raising the profile of LDN in the national policy agenda is
key for obtaining a common national long-term vision and commitment to LDN. While
good progress is evident in target-setting and institutional coordination, the profile of
LDN in the national policy agenda is yet to be substantially raised in order to maintain
and enhance well-being as well as livelihoods towards creating an enabling institutional
environment for LDN;
(b) Conclusion 2: Evidence highlights the relevance of collaboration with
technical and financial partners to assess finance and capacity development needs,
particularly considering that few countries have assessed financial needs or secured
finance for LDN;
(c) Conclusion 3: Land tenure security and land-use planning conditions are
key for creating an enabling policy and regulatory environment, and there is a clear
need to build national capacity for securing land tenure arrangements. Land tenure
security is not necessarily achieved through land titling; interventions that address the
sources of tenure insecurity are more effective than a single focus on titling;
(d) Conclusion 4: It is important to build up awareness-raising and
understanding pertaining to LDN in order to enhance the science-policy dimension of
the enabling environment for LDN; and
(e) Conclusion 5: Achieving multiple environmental, social and economic
benefits in the context of LDN requires stronger links connecting existing land planning
activities to LDN planning. In addition, strong links are necessary between common
aspects of LDN targets, nationally determined contributions, UNFCCC national
adaptation plans the CBD Post-2020 Biodiversity Framework, and associated policy
processes of all three Rio conventions.
53. The SPI suggests that the CST consider the following recommendations:
(a) Recommendation 1. Invite country Parties to ensure that LDN targets are
mainstreamed in national strategies and NAPs in order to raise the profile of LDN in
the national policy agenda to maintain and enhance well-being and livelihoods.
Mechanisms to support the creation of an enabling institutional environment for LDN
would include:
(i) Institutionalizing horizontal and multi-stakeholder coordination
mechanisms in support of LDN mainstreaming and implementation beyond the
LDN TSP;
(ii) Strengthening/developing vertical integration mechanisms that support
LDN implementation and enforcement to better coordinate top-down and
bottom-up actions related to LDN;
(iii) Ensuring horizontal and vertical institutional arrangements enable
upscaling and outscaling of best practices to implement and monitor LDN
measures and support capacity-building to develop, implement and monitor
LDN interventions; and

20. ICCD/COP(14)/CST/2
20
(iv) Encouraging involvement of all stakeholders in an iterative process for the
sake of effectiveness and adoption of SLM technologies and approaches;
(b) Recommendation 2. Invite country Parties in collaboration with technical
and financial partners to assess finance and capacity development needs. Mechanisms
to support creating an enabling financial environment for LDN would include:
(i) Accounting for costs of measures in budgets at all levels. Where possible,
it is recommended to leverage existing or planned investments for LDN. Finance
needs assessments at the national and other levels for achieving each national
LDN target should be completed, including medium to long-term financing needs
(operational, monitoring, enforcement costs);
(ii) Developing capabilities for LDN assessment while reducing costs of SOC
estimation in the long term based on investments in SOC measurement
tools/models;
(iii) Investing in capacity building for LDN monitoring based on national data
availability and local expertise;
(c) Recommendation 3. Calls upon country Parties to take into account the
land tenure and land-use planning conditions for creating an enabling policy and
regulatory environment. With respect to land governance, this would include:
(i) Integrating land tenure security into national strategies to achieve LDN.
Where land tenure is insecure, a recommended first step is evaluating the sources
of insecurity and addressing these sources appropriately;
(ii) Reconsidering programmes aimed at solely providing individual land
titles as these often fail to increase land tenure security. Options include capacity-
building for land administrations, legal and regulatory reform, clarification of
property rights, information campaigns and integrated land use planning.
Applying multiple interventions in concert would be the most effective in
addressing sources of insecurity;
(iii) Recognizing and protecting customary land governance systems in
national laws to enable customary land rights holders to be partners in LDN;
and
(iv) Following the VGGT to manage impacts of LDN measures on land tenure;
(v) Enhancing national capacities for effective implementation of integrated
land-use planning, establishing the full integration of a neutrality mechanism for
counterbalancing assessed losses with equal or greater gains, and applying the
LDN response hierarchy for measures to avoid, reduce and/or reverse land
degradation;
(vi) Estimating cumulative impacts of land-use decisions by assessing trends
in LDN indicators;
(vii) Accounting for actors involved in private land governance who have an
increasingly prominent role in shaping land governance and can therefore be
instrumental to achieving LDN. Hybrid governance and coalitions between
public and private actors can open pathways to implementing measures at a
large scale; and
(viii) Adapting LDN implementation to account for the globalization of value
chains of the agricultural and forest sectors. More research needs to be carried
out to tailor LDN implementation mechanisms to these land system types and
shape sustainable value chains;
(d) Recommendation 4. Call upon country Parties and cooperating partners
working on science-policy aspects relating to the enabling environment for LDN to
further engage in raising awareness and understanding of LDN. This would include:
(i) Enhancing awareness by facilitating access to information on LDN and
building capacities beyond the lead LDN entities, including entities at higher

21. ICCD/COP(14)/CST/2
21
political and administrative levels and involved in policymaking, and the public
in general;
(ii) Supporting research and development initiatives to develop novel context-
sensitive land governance mechanisms capable of avoiding, reducing and
reversing land degradation;
(iii) Building national capacity for improved assessment and monitoring of
LDN, including global and national indicators, multiple benefits and trade-offs
to support integrated land-use planning;
(iv) Synthesizing/developing science-based methods to support land-use
planning, including the use of scenario analysis and assessment of trade-offs;
(e) Recommendation 5. Call upon country Parties to further engage in
achieving multiple environmental, social and economic benefits in the context of LDN.
This would include:
(i) Leveraging existing land-use planning activities (specifically those
connected with LDN planning as well as policy processes of the Rio conventions,
including UNCCD NAPs, UNFCCC national adaptation plans and nationally
determined contributions, and the CBD Post-2020 Biodiversity Framework) for
maintaining or increasing SOC, for example;
(ii) Creating multifunctional landscapes that simultaneously address LDN,
land-based climate change adaptation and mitigation, and the conservation of
biological diversity;
(iii) Synthesising and applying available scientific tools and approaches to help
build national and subnational capacities to evaluate environmental, economic
and social trade-offs, as well as multiple benefits;
(iv) Assessing potential multiple benefits during the design of LDN
programmes and initiatives, including quantification wherever possible, to
properly manage expectations;
(v) Engaging early with local communities and affected stakeholders to
ensure that well-being and livelihood needs and outcomes, as well as potential
trade-offs and multiple benefits, are effectively identified, discussed, and
prioritized; and
(vi) Developing national leverage plans to maximize multiple benefits from
LDN and minimize trade-offs or unintended consequences.

22. ICCD/COP(14)/CST/2
22
Annex
Decision trees8
[English only]
1. The Science–Policy Interface technical report for sub-objective 1.1 provides a series
of decision trees designed to address important barriers to achieving the multiple benefits of
soil organic carbon (SOC).
2. The decision tree in figure 1 provides guidance on where investment in SOC
assessment and monitoring are recommended in order to track the impact of the
implementation of sustainable land management (SLM).
Figure 1
Determining whether to invest in soil organic carbon assessment and monitoring
Note: land degradation neutrality (LDN), soil organic carbon (SOC), sustainable land management (SLM), World
Overview of Conservation Approaches and Technologies (WOCAT).
8
The decision trees in this annex can be accessed in other languages in the online versions of the
related SPI technical report <https://www.unccd.int/spi2019-1> and science-policy brief
<https:/www.unccd.int/spi2019-brief1>.

23. ICCD/COP(14)/CST/2
23
3. The decision tree in figure 2 guides the use of SOC monitoring to assess and verify
positive SLM impact on SOC using direct measurements and/or tools/models for SOC
assessment and contribute these efforts to national-scale land degradation neutrality (LDN)
assessment.
Figure 2
Selecting the most appropriate approach for soil organic carbon assessment and
monitoring to verify positive impacts of sustainable land management and their
contribution to achieving land degradation neutrality
Note: land degradation neutrality (LDN), soil organic carbon (SOC), sustainable land management (SLM).

24. ICCD/COP(14)/CST/2
24
4. The decision tree in figure 3 (a) supports the use of tools/models for SOC assessment
and measured data to comparatively assess SOC impacts of potential SLM practices based
on low to moderate required levels of certainty in the results.
Figure 3 (a)
Selecting the most appropriate approach to soil organic carbon assessment and
monitoring when a moderate or low level of certainty is required
Note: soil organic carbon (SOC), sustainable land management (SLM).

25. ICCD/COP(14)/CST/2
25
5. The decision tree in figure 3 (b) supports the use of tools/models for SOC assessment
and measured data to comparatively assess SOC impacts of potential SLM practices based
on high required levels of certainty in the results.
Figure 3 (b)
Selecting the most appropriate approach to soil organic carbon assessment and
monitoring when a high level of certainty is required
Note: soil organic carbon (SOC), sustainable land management (SLM).

26. ICCD/COP(14)/CST/2
26
6. The decision tree in figure 4 helps identify essential areas of SOC monitoring in the
context of other indicators tracking land degradation, degradation status and land types.
Figure 4
Identifying essential areas for soil organic carbon monitoring
Note: land cover change (LCC), land degradation neutrality (LDN), net primary productivity (NPP), soil organic
carbon (SOC), sustainable land management (SLM).

27. ICCD/COP(14)/CST/2
27
7. The decision tree in figure 5 provides guidance on the selection of sampling
approaches to measure SOC and evaluate SOC change with SLM.
Figure 5
Selecting sampling approaches to measure and evaluate change in soil organic carbon
Note: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), soil organic carbon (SOC), sustainable land
management (SLM).